Do I need to use a different lens, camera body, or what?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I have been making a slow move into the professional photography business, and I am just not satisfied with the results I am getting. I want clear, crisp images and I would like to be able to go as large as a 16 x 20 print, but so far I can not get an image larger than an 11 x 14 without it beginning to look grainy. I have a Rebel G with an EF35-80 f/4-5.6III and an EF 75-300 f/4-5.6II lens. I normally use Portra 160 or 400 film and use a professional lab for developing and printing. I use a Sunpack auto 355AF thyristor for flash. I typically work with children/families and I do most of my work outdoors, ie...the side of a barn, garden, front porch, cotton field, hay bales and pumpkins,etc... Am I using the wrong lens? Or is it my camera body? Maybe it is my technique and lack of knowledge. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

-- Darlene Kimbrell (dark@alltel.net), December 08, 1999

Answers

I can't comment on your technique or knowledge, but the Rebel is as good as any light-tight box with shutter. In fact it has lots of nifty stuff to make photography interesting. But the lenes...

For serious enlargements you will probably want sharper glass. These are bottom of the line Canon zooms. You could do a bunch better. The 28-105 USM, 28-135 IS USM, 28-70 f:3.5-4.5 (discontinued) 28-70 f:2.8L, listed in general order of sharpness, are the ones you'll want for normal length. The 100-300 f:5.6L, 80-200 f:2.8L (discontinued) or 70-200 f:2.8L are probably sharpest Canon lenses in this catagory, but anything with an "L" in it is not cheap. Or give up on zooms all together. Canon prime lenses are very sharp.

All of this is dependent on good technique however. So use a sturdy tripod and stop the lens down a couple stops. You also might want to try film with less grain and more sharpness. Nothing wrong with Portra but Fuji Reala (100 ISO) is probably a bit sharper and it would show at 11X14".

If you are really serious about large format prints you might be better off with medium format cameras. The much larger film can be enlarged much higher.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), December 09, 1999.


I think that "beginning to look grainy" is a matter of film (ISO 400). Of course, yours lens are non-profi, but it means that they are not so sharp etc. (e.g. resolution). It would be better to try some 100 film (e.g. Fuji New Superia 100).

-- Ivan Miksik (miksik@biomed.cas.cz), December 09, 1999.

The suggestions above are all good ones; however, your immediate options depend largely on how much you are comfortable investing. By all means, a tripod and the slowest film you can tolerate will immediately improve the sharpness and grain of your photos, and are easiest to afford. The jump to L glass is not an inexpensive one (the 70-200L, for example, lists for over $1100US grey at B&H), and medium format systems are in the same ballpark and beyond. If you're itching for new lenses, be sure to check out some of the higher-end third party offerings; some of the better Sigma lenses (con trary to much of the public opinion) can yield excellent results (provided your technique is adequate) at a much more reasonable cost...

-- Scott (bliorg@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.

(Are you routinely using a tripod?) I too think the lenses in question are part of the problem, especially the 35-80. I recently decided to sell my EOS 28-70/2.8L after almost a year of using it, as I finally came to the conclusion that it was simply not as sharp as the 28/1.8 or the 50/1.4, and at 70mm I feel my 70-200/2.8L is sharper. (However, many others swear by the 28-70.) Of all the Canon EOS lenses I've owned, the 100/2.8 macro is perhaps the sharpest I've encountered, and it is my favorite portrait lens. Other EOS lenses that I love would include the 85/1.8, 200/2.8L, and 300/4L IS. And, I agree with the others here who suggest using a finer grained film.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), December 09, 1999.

Your main problem is that 16x20 is really pushing the limits of 35mm work if you are looking for high quality images, and that's using the best lenses and fine grain film - and you are using neither.

If you just object to grain, obviously, shoot slower, finer grain film (Konica Impressa at ISO 50 or so would be a good choice).

Your lenses aren't the sharpest out there, but unless you have lots of money to spend, you won't get the sharpest zooms. For minumim cost, look at getting a couple of prime lenses.

BTW this isn't really an EOS issue. The answer would be the same no matter what brand of equipment you use.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), December 09, 1999.



First, switch to Reala film. It is head and shoulders above any other film currently on the U.S. market in terms of sharpness and fine grain, according to carefully controlled studio tests I made about 18 months ago and posted on photo.net and Medium Format Digest.

Second, if you can afford it stop using zooms for this work and buy the EOS 85mm f1.8 lens. It will work for both individual portraits and small groups.

Third, either get a good incident meter or read your exposures from a gray card and set the camera manually. A little overexposure won't hurt, but underexposure will produce more grain with any film.

A tripod will help in static situations, but it's not much use if you are photographing children in action.

These changes will produce a quantum improvement in the quality of your prints. A 35mm negative made with Reala and a good lens will easily produce a 16x20 that will rival medium format to all but the most critical eye.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), December 11, 1999.


I have to agree with the majority of the answers, they're all right. The better zoom lenses are an improvement, also the tripod. The single focal lenths are even better. Also, pushing to 16x20 is a bit, but with a good single focal length and a tripod and slow film, you'll look pretty good next to a 16x20 from a medium format!

-- Ed McBreen (ejphoto1@aol.com), December 30, 1999.

Darlene-- You've gotten great suggestions-- slower speed film, fixed focal length lenses, & use of a tripod or monopod. I would trying to keep the lens at least one stop from its maximum aperature size; you will notice the images will be sharper. If you're considering other lenses, search the web for lens tests which will give you a better feel for the quality of the lens. Lens quality is more than just resolution. One area that zooms often fail is in having lower contrast due to the higher number of elements involved.

I am curious about your grain comment. Personally, I have found that some films appear sharper in large part due to noticeable grain patterns. For example, 16x20 prints I have made from Ilford's Delta 400 B&W often appear sharper than those taken with TMAX 100. TMAX is a sharper film but noticeable grain increases the frequency content of the image & fools one into thinking it's sharper.

I would also recommend using film for an environmental portrait that has medium contrast. The problem with some portrait films is that their reduced contrast makes them appear less sharp.

-- gary przyborski (garyprzy@crosswinds.net), January 26, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ